Posts

The Vestel Appeal: Vestel Elektronik v Access Advance

Image
Author Wags05  Licence Copyright waived by the Author   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Nugee and Birss and Lady Justice Laing)  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and another v Access Advance LLC and another [2021] (26 March 2021) [2021] WLR(D) 178, [2021] EWCA Civ 440 Many of the tellies that are sold in this country under such brands as Toshiba, Hitachi, Telefunken and Panasonic are actually made in Turkey by  Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S . and distributed by the Vestel group's British company Vestel UK Ltd.  In this article, "Vestel" refers to both Vestel companies.  Access Advance LLC  administers the HEVC patent pool.  HEVC is a video compression technology which is defined by the International Telecommunication Union H.265 recommendation. One of the members of that pool is Koninklijke Philips NV.  Vestel's Claim Vestel applied to Access Advance for a licence to use Philips's patents under Access Advance's Patent Portfolio

Patents - Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd

Image
  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) This was an action for an injunction, damages and other relief against aerospace manufacturer Airbus Operations Ltd, for patent infringement. There was also a counterclaim by Airbus for revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 9 and 12 Feb 2021. In  Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC) (25 March 2021) His Honour held that the patent was valid but that it had not been infringed.  The Patent The patent in suit is GB2455635B .  It was granted for a removable blind fastener.  The title might suggest that the invention has something to do with window blinds in an aircraft  cabin, In fact  "'Blind' is a term of art in the context of fasteners, meaning that the fastener can be fitte

Scottish Law and Innovation Network

Image
Author dun_deagh   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source Wikipedia Scotland Jane Lambert Shortly before the Scottish independence referendum, I wrote  What would an independent Scottish government do about Intellectual Property?   on 10 Sept 2014 and  More on Scotland and Intellectual Property   on 13 Sept 2014.  As Scotland approaches elections in which the question of secession from the United Kingdom will again be an issue, it is now appropriate to reconsider what should be the intellectual property policy of a separate Scotland. In 2014 the section on intellectual property in the Scottish government's white paper Scotland's Future  consisting of 4 short paragraphs of which only the first was of any relevance.  I was not particularly impressed with it and I said so at the time.  Having said that, credit should be given to the Scottish government for at least publishing a white paper on independence because there was nothing like that on the UK's withdrawal from the EU in June 2

Trade Marks: Wirex Ltd v Cryptocarbon Global Ltd

Image
Author Martin E Walder   Licence CC BY-SA  3.0   Source Cryptocurrency   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Wirex Ltd v Cryptocarbon Global Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 617 (IPEC) (16 March 2021) This was an action for trade mark infringement and a counterclaim for a declaration that the registration of that mark was invalid and passing off.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 26 Jan 2021.  His Honour dismissed the counterclaim and gave judgment to the claimant on 16 March 2021 (see  Wirex Ltd v Cryptocarbon Global Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 617 (IPEC) (16 March 2021). The Mark The mark in suit was  CRYPTOBACK  which the claimant Wirex Ltd,  had registered for a large range of goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 42 under registration number UK00003307327 with effect from 28 April 2018.  Wirex used that mark in relation to a credit card incentive scheme in which users receive their rewards in bitcoin. The

Practice: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology

Image
Author Raysonho Licence CC 1,0     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others (FRAND CMC Judgment ) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (4 March 2021) This was an application for an order under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring the 9th to 12th defendants ("the Xiaomi defendants") to answer the claimants; requests for further information of their statement of case.  The claimants had served over 100 requests upon the Xiaomi defendants on 12 Feb 2021 most of which those defendants had offered to answer by 16 March 2021. However, there were 2 requests that they refused to answer on the grounds that they were requests for expert evidence to which the claimants were not entitled until the exchange of experts' reports. At a case management conference before Mr Justice Mellor on 2 March 2021, the claimants applied for an order requiring the 9th to 12th defendants to answer all 100

The Form of the Carve Out and Publication Order: Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers

Image
By Seauton , 24 February 2019 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Lord Justice Warby) HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 669 (Ch) (22 March 2021) Following the largely successful summary judgment application by Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline in HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd . [2021] WLR(D) 100, [2021] 4 WLR 35, [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch) which I discussed in Summary Judgment - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers on 12 Feb 2021, Lord Justice Warby granted a declaration, injunction and publication order to the duchess and gave directions for the conduct of the remaining proceedings in HHR The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 510 (Ch) (5 March 2021). I discussed those proceedings in Judgment and Order: Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd on 9 March 2021, There remained issues over the wording of

Copyright in Works Created by Employees - Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd.

Image
Author Evan-Amos   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Hard disk drive Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Penhallurick v MD5 Ltd [2021] EWHC 293 (IPEC) (15 Febr 2021) This was a dispute between MD5 Ltd., a leading digital forensics company, and Michael Penhallurick, its former employee, over ownership of the copyrights in 8 works that relate to a technique called virtual forensic computing ("VFC").  The action was brought by Mr Penhallurick, the author of those works. He claimed copyright in the works and alleged that they had been infringed by MD5. MD5, for its part, claimed to own the copyrights and counterclaimed for copyright infringement and breach of contract.  Copyright in Works created by Employees Questions on who owns the copyright in literary and artistic works created by employees are asked frequently in my IP clinics and occasionally in formal instructions even though they rarely get as far as trial.  The default position